• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

If Atheism is a religion, what is *not* a religion?

PureX

Veteran Member
stemann said:
I get worried when I read things like this, worried both for the person that wrote it (because they seem to not understand the basics of logic), but mostly worried that I myself am missing something important.
It is reasonable to fear people who are that ignorant of logic and common sense. For a grown adult to be that ignorant requires a persistent effort at rejecting logic and common sense in favor of some sort of irrational fantasy of "truth", and one can only sepculate where such a broad-based rejection of reality will take them.
stemann said:
Is there a difference between 'belief that there is no God' and 'no belief that there is a God'? It seems yes, because the second one would also entail 'no belief that there is a God and no belief that there isn't a God'. Therefore, if I have a belief pertaining to God, namely, that he doesn't exist, is it true that my beliefs are being represented by the 'empty space on the wall'?
I think the confusion, here, is coming from the term "belief". And agnostic does not "believe" that God exists, nor does he believe that God does not exist. An agnostic has no belief in regards to the possible nature and existence of "God". An agnostic simply acknowledges that he can't verify the nature or existence of such a phenomenon as "God".

And atheist, however, has come to the concluding belief (though he may be willing to change this belief upon further evidence) that there is no such phenomenon as "God", at least not as "God" is commonly defined by most religions. And how strongly the atheist believes this, or how willing he is to change such a belief depends upon the individual.

The problem I have with atheism is that it's based on the THEIST'S LACK of supporting evidence to support the atheist's assertion, rather then on any actual supporting evidence. I understand why this is: that there can be no actual supporting evidence for something NOT existing, but it still leaves the assertion unsupported. And this is why I remain agnostic about the question of the existence of God.

I would point out, however, that just because we can't prove the nature or existence of God doesn't mean that it's illogical or irrational to choose to hope that a loving God does exist, or to live by that hope. There are logical and rational benefits of holding and living by such a hope, whether God actually exists or not.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
gnostic said:
Define religion first. When you have a definition of religion, then you realise that atheism is not a religion. Nor is agnosticism.
I agree.

The term "philosophy" defines the way a person understands themselves in relation to the world around them. The term "theology" defines this person's philosophy as it specifically relates to the concept of "God" and man's relationship to God. And the term "religion" refers to the way in which this person lives his life as a result of his theological beliefs.

Since an atheist does not believe that God exists, he has no theology, because a theology defines not only a concept of God, but also a concept of man's relationship to this God. Atheism is not a religion because there is no concept of a God-man relationship for any "religious" activity to be based on. So atheism is really just a part of a philosophical position that does not include "God". It's not a theology and it's not a religion.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Victor said:
I don't understand why people even want to bother categorizing atheist as religious. What is gained?

I believe it got started as a clever little bit of political propaganda created by the same sort of folks who came up with, "In order to save the village, we had to destroy it." Spin is truth these days for many of us.

Evearael has pointed out the political advantage of calling atheism a religion, so I won't go into that. But I'd like to mention that in this context that people believe what it benefits them to believe. Not too many people are that interested in truth for truths sake. So, spin like that is perfectly acceptable to pundits like the editorial writer in the OP because s/he feels it helps him or her score debate points. IMO, that's a cheap sell out of the truth.
 

logician

Well-Known Member
Atheism is a disbelief in a god period. It implies no other set of beliefs or morals, which are determined by the individual as he /she sees fit.
 

joeboonda

Well-Known Member
gnostic said:
It is a common mistake of Christian to believe that a person without religion is a person without morals. Although, I am not atheist, but as an agnostic, I am offended by such simplistic, and obviously false view.

I may not be a Christian, Muslim or Jew, but my moral codes are stronger than many so-called religious people. Morality, distinguishing right and wrong, and compassionate are universal things, and no religion have proprietary over them.

I agree, I aplogize, many atheists and non-christians and others I know live very moral lives, even more moral than me. I always fall short of the high moral law of God Almighty, I am only glad that God sent His Son to pay for my sins when I do fall short. He gives me a hope, since I am now saved, and a reason, and power to improve myself and be more like Him. And I have the assurance that my sins are forgiven and I have eternal life, and I don't have to worry if I have 'been good enough'. I haven't. But He was. And because of that love and assurance, I want to be the best I can be.
 

joeboonda

Well-Known Member
muichimotsu said:
That's merely one definition of what a religion is considered. If religion is a basis of morality, then religion does have a great deal more openness to systems and in many ways, makes philosophy a religion in that manner too. Atheism can be a religion in that manner as much as Buddhism can.

Some atheists call it a religion, some are insulted at the idea. There are some religions that don't necessarily believe in God, some Budhists don't believe in a God, some do.


To quote on this would take quite some time. Firstly, one has to define what is Godly principles. The country was founded moreso on Deism or Freemason principles over Christian ones. Christ wasn't really a large part of it, thusly "Christian" principles were not hugely part of it, over more humanist or at least theology based on human reason over revelation and blind faith. And Christian principles are "moral" principles more than Christian, thanks. Our government doesn't use religion in it as much as it uses basic reason of ethics and morality, which means we can consider ourself humanist in that sense, lol. This could go on forever, so I'll just stop here anyway.

Nah, that is just not right, the majority of folk were Christians.
 

joeboonda

Well-Known Member
Seyorni said:
The US was founded not on Christianity or the Bible but on the principles of The Enlightenment. The founding documents of our country may mention God, here and there, as was the style of the time, but the principles they espouse are Humanist ones.
The founding fathers were well aware of the strife and discord the religious movements of their time were causing. They took pains to found a secular country that held religion at arms length.

No, they were Christians, and the country was founded on Christian beliefs and principals first and foremost.
 

joeboonda

Well-Known Member
MaddLlama said:
Not 100% true. Yes, all of them believed in God, not all of them in the same God, and not all of them in the Bible. Just because the people who established the country believed a certain way, does that mean that it makes us a country that supports only the things they believed in? The founders were all white republican men. Does that mean that all women, democrats, and people of other races don't deserve anything?


That may be true, but nowhere in any of the founding documents does it specify *which* God. You just assume it's your own, because it's in your best interest.


Wow, you really don't know what that whole "seperation of church and state" thing is do you? Why is it that we assume that since those specific words do not appear, that the principle doesn't exist? There are any number of important legal concepts which do not appear in the Constitution with the exact phrasing people tend to use. For example, nowhere in the Constitution will you find words like "right to privacy" or even "right to a fair trial." Does this mean that no American citizen has a right to privacy or a fair trial? Does this mean that no judge should ever invoke these rights when reaching a decision? Of course not - the absence of these specific words does not mean that there is also an absence of these ideas.
Similarly, courts have found that the principle of a "religious liberty" exists behind in the First Amendment, even if those words are not actually there: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
The point of such an amendment is twofold. First, it ensures that religious beliefs - private or organized - are removed from attempted government control. This is the reason why the government cannot tell either you or your church what to believe or to teach. Second, it ensures that the government does not get involved with enforcing, mandating, or promoting particular religious doctrines. This is what happens when the government "establishes" a church - and because doing so created so many problems in Europe, the authors of the Constitution wanted to try and prevent the same from happening here.


Yes, in your opinion, but unfortunately only in your opinion. History however disagrees with you.
First of all, the first amendment was specifically designed to prohibit established churches, and at the Constitutional Convention, attempts to write in some sort of nominal support for Christianity always failed. In addition, the people at the time were distinctly "unchurched." The best estimates indicate that only 10% to 15% of the population actually attended church services.
It is true that Ben Franklin proposed that delegates at the Convention open their sessions with morning prayers, and people who oppose the separation of church and state try to make a lot out of this. According to the records, Franklin suggested that "henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business." Aside from the fact that such a prayer clearly isn't very Christian in nature, what is usually left unsaid is the fact that his proposal was never accepted. Indeed, delegates didn't even bother voting on it - instead, they voted to adjourn for the day! The proposal was not taken up the next day, and Franklin never bothered to mention it again.
The delegates' refusal to base this nation on Christianity can also be seen in the fact that neither God nor Christianity are mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. In the main part of the Constitution, the only mention of religion is that there should be no "religious tests" for public office.
The position that the United States is a "Christian Nation" is dealt a serious blow by the fact that, as early as 1797, the government specifically said that it is not a Christian Nation. The occasion was a peace and trade agreement between the United States and Muslim leaders in North Africa. The negotiations were conducted under the authority of George Washington, and the final document, known as the Treaty of Tripoli, was approved of by the Senate under the leadership of John Adams, the second president. This treaty states, without equivocation, that the "...Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...."

Anyhow, I'll stop now since this is getting off topic, but as a person who values her nations history, it's my duty to correct ignorance.

I would also like to add just one thing:

We are not a Christian nation, we are not an atheist nation, we are not anything but just a nation. And as far as I'm concerned, that should be good enough for everyone.

And also, to reiterate what others have said, the idea that those who do not believe in God (or even in just your God) are amoral is offensive, ignorant, and just plain wrong.

It was a CHRISTIAN nation.
 

mr.guy

crapsack
purex said:
...it's based on the THEIST'S LACK of supporting evidence to support the atheist's assertion,
Which is, correct me if i'm wrong, the theist's lack of supporting evidence for the THEIST'S assertion.
 

Green Gaia

Veteran Member
joeboonda said:
Nah, that is just not right, the majority of folk were Christians.

No, they were Christians, and the country was founded on Christian beliefs and principals first and foremost.

It was a CHRISTIAN nation.
It was a Native American nation, until the Christians came and we all know how well that turned out for the natives.
 

joeboonda

Well-Known Member
There is just too much, and I am planning to get off the computer soon, I just wanted to comment. Heck, the main reason people came to america was they were devoutly religious, CHRISTIANS who wanted to worship as they please, and THAT is what our country was founded on. It is so well documented, but I can understand the humanists have brainwashed most of you kids.
 

Green Gaia

Veteran Member
joeboonda said:
There is just too much, and I am planning to get off the computer soon, I just wanted to comment. Heck, the main reason people came to america was they were devoutly religious, CHRISTIANS who wanted to worship as they please, and THAT is what our country was founded on. It is so well documented, but I can understand the humanists have brainwashed most of you kids.

Was the slaughtering of the natives and forced conversions just brainwashing too?
 

logician

Well-Known Member
Christianity , like many other religions. indoctrinates its children from day one with the many fables that come along with the religion, teaching them to have unquestioning "faith" that the BS is they are taught is true. If that is not BRAINWASHING, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS.
 

mr.guy

crapsack
logician said:
Christianity , like many other religions. indoctrinates its children from day one with the many fables that come along with the religion, teaching them to have unquestioning "faith" that the BS is they are taught is true. If that is not BRAINWASHING, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS.
This applies to any and all acculturation.
 

joeboonda

Well-Known Member
Maize said:

Was the slaughtering of the natives and forced conversions just brainwashing too?

Let me ask you this, would a true, born-again, spirit-filled Christian slaughter anyone? If they follow the teachings of the Bible, of course not. Also, would a true, born-again, spirit-filled Christian FORCE someone to accept Christ when our job is only to proclaim the good news to lost sinners, and let them decide? I don't think so. So, I would say that many folks within the realm of christendom are and were not true Christians now were they?
 

mr.guy

crapsack
joe said:
So, I would say that many folks within the realm of christendom are and were not true Christians now were they?
Then it goes without saying that if those weren't "true" christians, then america wasn't "truely" founded christian.
 
  • Like
Reactions: d.

joeboonda

Well-Known Member
logician said:
Christianity , like many other religions. indoctrinates its children from day one with the many fables that come along with the religion, teaching them to have unquestioning "faith" that the BS is they are taught is true. If that is not BRAINWASHING, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS.

Lucky for me I 'questioned' my faith long ago, many times, and sought and found the answers. Raise up a child in the way they should go and when they are old they will not depart from it. Nothing wrong with teaching kids right from wrong, and about the Lord. Lot better than telling them the lie that they are merely animals with no hope but the grave, no wonder they behave like them.
 
Top